Indeed, I think the same question can be raised for places like Palestine, or even Northern Ireland or the Philippines. How's that working out, exactly?
Palestine itself is not engaged in armed struggle for socialism. If so, I missed the memo. They are engaged in a defensive, somewhat centrifugally expressed *defensive* armed struggle. Ireland...we all know that's lead... and the Philippines has resulted in almost the total demobilization, often leading to gangsterism, of the NPA. Most communists are no longer anywhere near the CPP anymore, having rejected Sison's armed struggle strategy as antiquated and not fitting the mostly urban population that makes up the Philippines today. Armed struggle *can work* if it intersects a truly revolutionary movement of the *masses*. But if not, it ends up being like it was, or is, in the Philippines, or Peru, where the armed struggle does not reflect the consciousness of the masses but in fact bypasses, completely, the people they are supposed to be leading. The need to build a revolutionary party OF the working class and peasantry in these countries is still on the agenda and armed struggles actions by dedicated militants often bypasses the working class in this endeavor. It seems like in India's increasingly urban environment, even if with local or small regional successes, India is not unlike the Philippines in this regard. The Maoists there seem to have bypassed the large urban centers and focused on the lower populated rural areas which, in many ways, seems to have isolated them. ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
